There are more photography executives/experts on this comments section than entire photography industry can afford.
Muus: Dear DPR staff, this may be nitpicking, but: 1/4000th sec is not maximum but minimum shutter speed. Please.
To be exact; 1/4000th is the maximum speed of the shutter consequently the minimum exposure duration. @Muus=totally wrong statement, @Samuel Dilworth= Your agreement with Muus is wrong and illogical because your explanation is correct. IMHO the terminology is satisfactory and correct also.
Frank C.: for 500$ I would consider it ... but barely. That sensor is not worth the money they're asking for no matter how you slice or dice it
And why should we take notice of people who pass "writer's" opinion for himself and let market forces dictate their opinion. What a sad counter argument...
DogsareGodsgifttous: GREAT VALUE! This Olympus OM-D E-M1 is the best camera I've ever owned - BLOWS AWAY MY CANON 5D system in terms of size, functions, image quality, and ease of handling. I'm a professional studio portrait and wedding photographer for 31 years and started back in the film days. Don't let anyone fool you- sensor size, prime lenses, go ahead and spend on this and spend on that. This is the best bang for the buck in years for the amount of quality you get for the price. Go ahead and spend thousands more on a "better" system, only to be outdated in 2 years or less anyway. It's not the equipment- it's how you use it folks! Great images do not have to come only from spending 5k or more for the body and lenses. Thank you Olympus for giving us high quality on par with the Canon spenders!
Photography isn't about blowing away systems. It's rather about making use of the gear you have for the sake of photography. And when it comes to comparing image quality of the Olympus to a full frame camera?Please don't, because there is more to it than overcooked jpegs with sharp edges.
Nowadays Leica can take pride in their cameras from the past only.
Judging by the picture quality this camera is a glorified Android telephone without the telephone and costs more than 1000!!!
oselimg: Greedy but not retro at least.
Greedy means consumption more than necessary/needed. Dual pixel focusing is a great function especially in live view mode coupled with touch screen focusing, granted. But charging 500$ for just a software update is greedy in anyone's dictionary. If dual pixel function costs 500 how do you explain the price of 70D? I'm not advocating free update for a new functionality. Your justification/attitude is the reason why some companies can afford to charge over the odds.
Greedy but not retro at least.
oselimg: This so called"retro" trend must be a very effective way of milking the vain and the shallow. Why not make even older looking cameras and put even more absurd prices on them.
Making a fashion statement has never been my strong point ;-)
Lardinio: I was reading this in an article defending the camera "This isn’t a camera to grow your business. This isn’t your second or third wedding body. This isn’t your do-it-all camera. This is the “grow yourself” camera. This is a gift to yourself for a job well done. This is a camera to remind you why you are a photographer"
Say, I'd love a camera for the sake of it, a nice little toy to play with, but I don't have $3k to grow myself. Neither has 99% of people who buy Nikon.
If I want to grow myself I'll stand in a bag of fertiliser, much cheaper.
except that it's not as usable as other Nikon cameras.
This so called"retro" trend must be a very effective way of milking the vain and the shallow. Why not make even older looking cameras and put even more absurd prices on them.
No wood in sight...I ain't buying it
And f4 for a landscape...mystery continues.
And this time it's smaller f9??
I kind'a wander about the choice of f8 too. Is it because the lens performs badly below it or the photographer wanted to get the maximum DOF. But then the background hasn't got much to do with the subject. It's a mystery.
oselimg: Leica know something but the enthusiast and the pro's don't? It may be that Leica don't make these cameras for photographers instead they make them for the richest 3% which we have no idea about where they live or what they do. I can't imagine any hard working middle class going for it. Errm there is the third possibility too; Leica are trying to bankrupt "elegantly" for tax reasons.
You seem to have talked to them so share your wisdom with us. Richness in material simply comes with the material value/price of what you do. And material richness of all kinds require material poorness of others including basic needs.
Leica have got the strategy wrong in my opinion. They should offer lamb chops instead of the inedible pouch.
Leica know something but the enthusiast and the pro's don't? It may be that Leica don't make these cameras for photographers instead they make them for the richest 3% which we have no idea about where they live or what they do. I can't imagine any hard working middle class going for it. Errm there is the third possibility too; Leica are trying to bankrupt "elegantly" for tax reasons.
njkdo: Nice pics really, more like Benetton advertising campaign than documentary photos, and ten years for this is really too much.Maybe a look at Josef Koudelka photos could help.Very beautiful pics, this is my favorite style.
Minimum two people here don't understand what they read.